Safe Speed Forums

I agree with dcb.

Greenshed's interpretation is certainly not how I understand the keeper's duties. This view serves the interests of those who might want to get a conviction under any circumstances but does not serve justice.

Despite the affirmation in the first sentence of Greenshed's post, I think it extremely unlikely that the average person will keep detailed records and IMO is not required to do so.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Unless you have responsibility for commercial fleets then "detailed records" are not required.

I am not advocating detailed records at all imply "reasonable diligence" and I am suggesting that the "reasonable diligence" begins when you keep a vehicle NOT when evidence is gathered that an offence is detected in relation to that vehicle and the keeper is asked who was driving at the time.

The law is clear, you are required to KNOW.

Not so. "A person shall not be guilty of an offence .... if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was" No legal obligation to KNOW - only to try really hard to find out.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

For company cars there is no requirement to keep a log of drivers. However if it is not possible to name the driver, then to avoid conviction the company will need to show that failure to keep a log did not contribute to their inability to ID the driver.

For private cars there is no requirement to keep a log and no need to defend the absence of a log if you can't ID the driver.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

The law is indeed clear. It is clear that for private car owners there is no requirement to know. There is a requirement to use reasonable diligence to try to find out.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Do we have another instance where the user greenshed is apparently giving misleading information/arguments?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I haven't mentioned a log.

What I have said is that if you are unable to name the driver then you cannot have been reasonably diligent because if you have a vehicle then you may be required to name the driver in the event of being asked to do so. As the law is written and you should know it as a keeper of a vehicle then to conduct yourself as a keeper in a way that means you cannot know who has driven the vehicle while knowing the question may be asked of you perhaps cannot be considered reasonably diligent.

I believe it is a common mistake to assume diligence is only applied to the efforts to ascertain the driver after the event; I contend that that it is reasonable to be diligent as a keeper to know who is driving the vehicle for which you have accepted being the keeper of and the laws applying to that.

It is also a mistake to differentiate between company cars and private cars; if the vehicle is driven by multiple drivers at some stage the driver may need to be identified, company or private.

...and if your vehicle, for which you are keeper is involved in an offence then you have not been reasonably diligent if you cannot name the driver when asked. Where in the law does it say reasonable diligence applies after an offence is detected?

The problem for the keeper is that if you cannot identify the driver then there is a rebuttable presumption that the keeper was the driver at the time of the offence; hello to 9 points, 3 for speeding and 6 for failure to identify the driver at the time of the offence.

I think not.
The case law is quite clear in my post here and goes against what was suggested by Steve, notably there has been no alternative given to that proposed position. Maybe your magistrate can have a go at it.

Is it the case that only one set of points (those for the most serious offence) would be applied when being sentenced for 2 or more motoring offences at the same time?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Have a word with this chap: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... eding.html

Jermain Defoe found guilty of speeding
Jermain Defoe, the Tottenham and England striker, has been found guilty of two speeding offences.
Published: 5:24PM BST 29 May 2009
The former Portsmouth striker, 26, was also convicted of failing to declare who was driving his Land Rover at the time of the offences.
Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard that the star was caught breaking a 50mph speed limit on the M11 at Chigwell, Essex, in April and June last year.
Defoe was caught driving at 65mph just after midnight on April 16 last year and then at 81mph at about 9pm on June 6 last year.
The court heard a temporary speed limit of 50mph had been in place at the time.
Delivering his verdicts, Mark Jabbitt, the Deputy District Judge said: "In effect this was a technical assault on the evidence which I find has no merit.
"The evidence was not challenged in any real sense and as a result I find that he [Defoe] was the driver on each occasion.
"If Mr Defoe had wanted to assert anything he could have come to court today - that would have been an issue of substance."
Defoe, who already has six points on his licence - three for speeding and three for using a mobile phone while driving - is set to have a further 18 points slapped on as a result of today's convictions, meaning an automatic ban under the totting up procedure.

There you go, 3 for each speeding offence = 6; 6 for each fail to comply = 12; 6 +12 = 18.

The answer then is "NO" it is not the case.

It is a commonly held and mistaken belief that the offences of speeding and failing to identify the driver are mutually exclusive; the offences are separate and are committed at different times by different acts of the individual who commits them so can be charged and prosecuted separately.

I don't see the relevance of your response to the post I linked. I've left a request for an open explanation within that thread.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That edit was very wise; I was about to have you for that post. I wasn't "wrong" was I! How will I survive?
(ps: it's OK for me to be wrong, I know I'm not officialy recognised as any authority on these matters - how about you?)


Also, I wasn't talking about two separate offences; it is quite obvious what you stated is correct, but it is not relevant.
In this case we are clearly talking about outcomes from the one offence - exactly as you had described (quoted above).

Clarifying this: would a person who is being sentenced for failure to ID for a speeding offence, actually get the full 9 points?
Would an allegation of speeding be withdrawn becasue the CPS don't know who to prosecute?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I thought the edit was correct rather than wise.

The example of Mr. Defoe is 2 examples of that.

He got 9 points for speeding and failing to ID because he was the vehicle keeper failing to ID the driver at the time of a speeding offence. Then...
He got 9 points for speeding and failing to ID because he was the vehicle keeper failing to ID the driver at the time of a speeding offence.

They were simply 2 instances tried and later appealed at the same court at the same time.

Can you see the relevance now?

An allegation of speeding is often withdrawn when a driver is not identified however when it is withdrawn in the circumstances where the person is the keeper/owner then it is wrongly withdrawn because both offences can be taken to a successful conviction. There is absolutely no legal reason why they should not be.
In the case at the head of this thread the keeper should have been given 9 points for not identifying the driver and speeding and the non-keeper should have been given 6 points for failing to ID the driver when requested to do so. The CPS have simply not prosecuted the speeding where they could have.

I note the words "believe" and "contend" in here. This is just your opinion isn't it and has just the same value as mine.

I believe it is the intention of the law (wording quoted in the posts above) that after being asked to name the driver you then seek to do this with reasonable diligence. I contend that this would be reasonable and just behaviour given the gravity of the allegation.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

It is for the courts to decide, not you or I but it seems that you have decided; which one of us is therefore correct?

As for value you would have to consider who was working from how the law and the courts work against who was working to how they would like them to work so they do so.

My apologies, I did misread the article. What I said about it wasn't correct.

However, two further issues are raised:
1) the article stated "is set to have... " which is not the same as "He got ..."
2) that quote was a summary from a journalist, not a judge's actual statement.

Your given example doesn't serve satisfactory as proof of your claim (I'm not saying you are wrong).


So to sum up: it's at the very least possible to not have the other points imposed, which is not nearly the same as you had originally implied.
"hello to 9 points" is, at best, only a possibility. Your saying that withdrawal is 'wrong' is based only on your opinion of what should be.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

He was awarded all of the points in that case and he was subsequently tried and convicted in another court in a similar double charge. Newspapers are not the absolute authority but in this case Mr. Defoe is currently off the road after being very heavy with points. if you have a link to the courts then post it up but I haven't got one to hand. If you want to labour under the misunderstanding that what I have said isn't the case then fair enough but I'm not digging the court reports out for you.

<sigh>


Bias confirmation strikes again?
Maybe you should use your image as your avatar - it would be very appropriate.

Court papers aren't necessary, a verifiable report of events that actually transpired will do.

You report was Published: 5:24PM BST 29 May 2009. Later reports which you apparently couldn't be bothered to dig up show something really quite amusing:


Supersedes yours! Well, yours was from before the event


The exact same offences are being referenced.



So he must have been given 18 points - right?


A far cry from your claim of 18; that seems very much like 2x6 to me.

I suspect you had already realised the example you gave actually backfired on your own argument



I've done a bit of digging. While it is possible to apply all the points (the refusal to provide S172 occurs at a different time), such sentences are apparently infrequent; for the majority of cases, it seems only the points for the most serious offence is applied.(1, 2, 3).

It does seem that an implication that one will always get the full total, really is highly misleading.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign